[SPARK-31711][CORE][FOLLOWUP] Move executorSourceLocalModeOnly to sparkEnv #30619
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Can one of the admins verify this patch? |
|
We're closing this PR because it hasn't been updated in a while. This isn't a judgement on the merit of the PR in any way. It's just a way of keeping the PR queue manageable. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
What changes were proposed in this pull request?
This followup of from SPARK-31711 and a recent review comment in #28528 by @zsxwing :
(
executorSourceLocalModeOnly) is never been cleaned. It would be great to avoid using a global executorSourceLocalModeOnly to save a state of a specific executor. Can we move this to SparkEnv so that a state of one test won't be leaked to other tests?Why are the changes needed?
This PR moves
executorSourceLocalModeOnlyfrom Executor to SparkEnvDoes this PR introduce any user-facing change?
No
How was this patch tested?
This is covered by existing tests + also manually tested.